IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 392 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the enactment 

of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, Public 

Law 111–148, violated article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution because it was a bill for raising revenue that did not originate 

in the House of Representatives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2015 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. 

PITTENGER, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. OLSON, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. SALMON, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. JORDAN, and Mr. NEWHOUSE) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act of 2009, Public Law 111–148, violated article 

I, section 7 of the United States Constitution because 

it was a bill for raising revenue that did not originate 

in the House of Representatives. 

Whereas article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution 

provides that ‘‘[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate 

may propose or concur with Amendments as on other 

Bills’’; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 392 IH 

Whereas this constitutional requirement that revenue-raising 

bills originate in the House of Representatives applies 

whenever an ‘‘act . . . by any of its provisions’’ has a 

‘‘purpose . . . to raise revenue to be applied in meeting 

the expenses or obligations of the government’’, but not 

when the raising of revenue is ‘‘incidental’’ and there is 

‘‘no [such] purpose’’; 

Whereas the constitutional allowance for Senate-initiated revenue-raising amendments applies when an ‘‘amendment 

[is] germane to the subject-matter of [a House revenueraising bill] and not beyond the power of the Senate to 

propose’’; 

Whereas the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 

2009 was introduced in the United States Senate on November 19, 2009, by its sponsors as the ‘‘Senate health 

care bill’’ through Senate Amendment No. 2786, a proposed amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

3590, which had passed the House of Representatives by 

a vote of 416–0 as the ‘‘Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009’’ on October 8, 2009; 

Whereas the Senate passed Senate Amendment No. 2786 on 

November 21, 2009, by a party-line vote of 60–39, thereby striking the entire six-page House bill after its enacting clause and inserting in its place the 2,000-plus page 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009; 

Whereas the sponsors of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 not only contemplated the possibility of substantial excess revenues, but also explicitly 

announced on introducing Senate Amendment No. 2786 

that ‘‘[t]his bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion’’; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 392 IH 

Whereas section 1563 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 specifically finds that ‘‘this Act 

will reduce the Federal deficit between 2010 and 2019’’ 

and ‘‘this Act will continue to reduce budget deficits after 

2019’’; 

Whereas title IX of the Senate-initiated Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act of 2009 contains 17 numbered 

‘‘Revenue Provisions’’ to generate tax revenue to the general account in the United States Treasury; 

Whereas title IX of the substitute bill inserted into H.R. 

3590 by Senate Amendment No. 2786 unquestionably 

raises revenue within the meaning of article I, section 7 

of the United States Constitution, including without limitation an excise tax on medical devices that has no conceivable purpose other than the raising of revenue to support the operation of the Federal Government, regardless 

of how the Federal courts resolve the question of whether 

the ‘‘shared responsibility payment’’ added by section 

1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act of 2009 raises revenue within the meaning of article 

I, section 7 of the United States Constitution; 

Whereas, as it passed the House of Representatives on October 8, 2009, H.R. 3590 consisted of six sections, namely— 

(1) the bill’s short title (section 1); 

(2) 3 sections (sections 2 through 4) that eliminated 

certain tax streams as applied to military, intelligence, 

and foreign service personnel; 

(3) a section (section 5) that increased by $21 the 

penalty for failing to file returns for partnerships and S 

corporations under sections 6698(b)(1) and 6699(b)(1) of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 392 IH 

(4) a section (section 6) that shifted 0.5 percent of 

certain corporations’ estimated tax payments from the 

4th calendar quarter to the 3rd calendar quarter, with an 

equal and offsetting reduction to 4th quarter payments; 

Whereas, regardless of how the Federal courts resolve the 

question of whether the phrase ‘‘raising revenue’’ under 

article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution 

means ‘‘increasing revenue’’ or merely ‘‘levying revenue’’, 

the House and Senate since 1872 have interpreted provisions, such as sections 2 through 4 of H.R. 3590 as 

passed by the House on October 8, 2009, that eliminate 

revenue streams as not raising revenue within the meaning of article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution; 

Whereas section 5 of H.R. 3590 as it passed the House on 

October 8, 2009, would have increased penalties as a regulatory measure to encourage timely filing of returns, 

with no revenue-raising purpose and no more than incidental revenue; 

Whereas section 6 of H.R. 3590 as it passed the House on 

October 8, 2009, would have merely accomplished a 3- 

month temporal shift in estimated tax payments, without 

altering the total amount of such estimated tax payments; and 

Whereas nothing in the Senate-initiated Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act of 2009 was germane to the 

subject matter of H.R. 3590 as it passed the House on 

October 8, 2009: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•HRES 392 IH 

1 (1) as passed by the House on October 8, 2009, 

2 H.R. 3590, the Service Members Home Ownership 

3 Tax Act of 2009, was not a ‘‘Bill for raising rev4 enue’’ within the meaning of article I, section 7 of 

5 the United States Constitution; 

6 (2) as passed by the Senate on December 24, 

7 2009, H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Af8 fordable Care Act of 2009, was a ‘‘Bill for raising 

9 revenue’’ within the meaning of article I, section 7 

10 of the United States Constitution; and 

11 (3) the Senate-initiated Patient Protection and 

12 Affordable Care Act of 2009 that the Senate passed 

13 on December 24, 2009, the House passed on March 

14 21, 2010, and the President signed on March 23, 

15 2010, was not within the power of the Senate to 

16 ‘‘propose or concur with Amendments as on other 

17 Bills’’ within the meaning of article I, section 7, 

18 clause 2 of the United States Constitution. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS